Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Jul 19th, 2010 :: 1:39:25 to 2:17:40
Total video length: 3 hours 18 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:137 Duration: 0:38:15 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Jeff Sessions

1:39:14 to 1:39:34( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: would ask that i be allowed to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i want to speak on a very serious issue relating to the general elena kagan for the supreme court of the united states. as i was preparing for her hearings, i noticed what struck

Jeff Sessions

1:39:25 to 2:17:40( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jeff Sessions

Jeff Sessions

1:39:35 to 1:39:55( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: me as a disturbing decision that she had made as solicitor general shortly after taking that position called witt v. the department of the air force n that case, a former member of an air force reserve unit in washington state sued the government to challenge the

Jeff Sessions

1:39:56 to 1:40:16( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: don't ask, don't tell law, which essentially says openly homosexual persons may not serve in the united states military. the case was dismissed by the district court, and the military was allowed to proceed with its policy. but when it was appealed to the

Jeff Sessions

1:40:17 to 1:40:38( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: ninth circuit, that very liberal ninth circuit overturned the district court and said that the case should go to trial and announced an unworkable legal test that the lower court must apply that would have to be met for the don't ask, don't tell statute to survive constitutional challenge.

Jeff Sessions

1:40:39 to 1:41:00( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: after that unprecedented ruling, the solicitor general's office -- now still manned by the bush administration personnel -- immediately authorized an appeal to the full ninth circuit en banc and the government asked the full court to take a look at it and review it and overturn

Jeff Sessions

1:41:01 to 1:41:21( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: the three-judge panel. the court declined to do so, over strong objections from several circuit who thought their colleagues had clearly gotten the case wrong. in fact, the first circuit in the

Jeff Sessions

1:41:22 to 1:41:42( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: already reached a different conclusion in a very similar case upholding the statute. at that point, the government could have appealed the ninth circuit decision to the supreme court, as i think the solicitor general's office clearly was on track to do. first they sought en banc

Jeff Sessions

1:41:43 to 1:42:03( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: review, and then they would seek interlocutory appeal. but as it happened, by the time the case was right for appeal, the obama administration had come into office and ms. kagan had become solicitor general. the office that makes this decision, the office that's charged with the great responsibility of defending

Jeff Sessions

1:42:04 to 1:42:26( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: before the supreme court and the courts of appeals if necessary statutes of the united states congress, and don't ask, don't tell is a statutory congressional law, not a policy of the military. so it fell to her to decide now whether to take the case to the supreme court.

Jeff Sessions

1:42:27 to 1:42:48( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: she refused. i practiced law for 20 years, 15 as a part of the department of justice as a unit, as a united states attorney for 12. and i think i can make some commonsense of this litigation. ms. kagan, at the time that she made it decision, had only been

Jeff Sessions

1:42:49 to 1:43:09( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: solicitor general -- had only served in the department of justice six weeks or so. so i'm going to analyze what i think happened and ask some serious questions about why this solicitogeneral failed to follow through on what appeared to be the direction of her

Jeff Sessions

1:43:10 to 1:43:30( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: predecessor. i was struck by the distinct possibility that ms. kagan did not fulfill this fundamental responsibility of her office, which is to defend the constitution -- the statutes of the united states, regardless of

Jeff Sessions

1:43:31 to 1:43:53( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: her personal policy views. so at her confirmation hearing just a couple of weeks ago when she came up, i asked her about this case and the up to it, and i asked her to explain the and i deliberately intended to give her time to explain it. well, she took time, using notes

Jeff Sessions

1:43:54 to 1:44:17( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: for about the only time i saw in the hearing and talked, i think, uninterrupted for about 10 minutes to explain what it is that -- how it was she made this decision. at the end of it, i thanked her for her answer and noted that i was just going to have to review this because it did not make

Jeff Sessions

1:44:18 to 1:44:39( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: good sense to me, what she had done. and i i mean, i am a senator. i have to know whether the person who's being considered to sit on the highest court of the land with a lifetime appointme could serve 30, maybe 40 years on the court.

Jeff Sessions

1:44:40 to 1:45:01( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: are they understanding of the fact that officeholders have duties and responsibilities that they cannot fail to discharge? they must do. i've conducted an examination, and i must say i'm very troubled by what i have found about this case.

Jeff Sessions

1:45:02 to 1:45:23( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: i think the record shows that ms. kagan did not in fact fulfill her responsibilities in a good way and in a faithful way as solicitor general, and that she in effect violated a specific promise she made to the judiciary committee when she testified under oath during the

Jeff Sessions

1:45:24 to 1:45:45( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: hearing on her nomination a year or so ago to be solicitor general. she had to be confirmed then and come before the judiciary committee. before i go further, i want to pause for a little bit and provide some background. it's widely known by many that ms. kagan is personally opposed to don't ask, don't tell, and

Jeff Sessions

1:45:46 to 1:46:06( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: that she had been opposed to it for some time. while she was dean at harvard, she blocked military recruiters from the campus career servers office because of her opposition to don't ask, tkoepblt. she called don't ask, don't tell, moral injustice of the first order.

Jeff Sessions

1:46:07 to 1:46:29( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: close quote. she spoke at a protest of students who protested while a military recruiter was in the next office. she changed the harvard policy from admitting recruiters to the career services office to denying them admittance without legal authority.

Jeff Sessions

1:46:30 to 1:46:51( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: contrary to law that congress passed -- i worked on -- to force these universities to treat our military men and women who come to recruit on their campus with the same dignity and resp else fromome law firm who

Jeff Sessions

1:46:52 to 1:47:12( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: makes millions of dollars. at the haerbgs she openly add -- at the hearing, she openly admited to me that her views remain the same about the statute. when she came before the committee as solicitor general, she was specifically asked in written questions, in light of her strong opposition to this law -- because it was well known.

Jeff Sessions

1:47:13 to 1:47:33( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: i mean, congress passed three or four versions of the solomon act to finally require that colleges and universities that treat our military on an equal basis, at least some of them that were denying it, force them to do so or lose federal funding. she was specifically asked that

Jeff Sessions

1:47:34 to 1:47:55( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: in light of her strong opposition to this law, whether she would be able to defend it as the job of the solicitor general would that's a solemn -- this was not a mystery. this matter we knew was coming up through the courts of appeals and would be coming before the

Jeff Sessions

1:47:56 to 1:48:18( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: solicir general, and she was flat-out asked, if you're going to take this job, you've been opposed to this statute, will you defend it as you are lawfully required to do? oepblt solicitor general can represent -- only the solicitor general can represent the united states in the supreme court. and if the solicitor general

Jeff Sessions

1:48:19 to 1:48:39( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: does not defend an act of congress, who will? there's no one else. that was a good question. and she pmised the committee under oath that she would. and she said that her -- quote -- "role as solicitor general would be to advance not my own

Jeff Sessions

1:48:40 to 1:49:00( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: views, but the interest of the united states." close quote. correctly stated. she went on to say that she was -- quote -- "fully convinced" that she could -- quote -- "represent all these ierests with vigor even when they conflict with my own opinions."

Jeff Sessions

1:49:01 to 1:49:21( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: she said her general approach to suits challenging a federal law would be to make any -- quote -- "reasonable arguments that could be made at its defense" and this would include -- quote -- "challenges to the statutes involving don't ask, don't tell

Jeff Sessions

1:49:22 to 1:49:45( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: policy." a pretty specific promise. it was an important promise. i'm sure had she not made that promise, a lot of people -- even more people would not have voted for her confirmation. she went on to say that she would -- quote -- "apply the usual strong presumption of

Jeff Sessions

1:49:46 to 1:50:06( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: constutionality" to that reinforced by -- quote -- "the doctrine of judicial deference to legislation involving miliry matters." as i mentioned earlier, it just so happened that immediately after she was confirmed, it fell her lot to defend this very

Jeff Sessions

1:50:07 to 1:50:28( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: statute that she personally, strongly opposed but that she had promised she would vigorously defend. she was given the opportunity to appeal to that terrible decision out of the ninth circuit which refused to uphold don't ask,on't tell and which ordered the military to go to trial in the middle of

Jeff Sessions

1:50:29 to 1:50:49( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: a war to justify the law under a newly invented legal standard. faced with that choice, ms. kagan refused to appeal, decided to let decision stand and allowed this case to be sent back down to go throug and when i -- and the -- clearly

Jeff Sessions

1:50:50 to 1:51:10( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: to me, the military's desire was to have the matter decided as a matter of law. that this is a lawful policy, and they're empowered to carry it out in a lawful manner. and when i asked ms. kagan at her supreme court hearing just recently, two weeks ago, why she

Jeff Sessions

1:51:11 to 1:51:31( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: blocked the supreme court review of the witt case, she gave three reasons in this long answer. some may have thought she gave a brilliant tkeus -- brilliant

Jeff Sessions

1:51:32 to 1:51:54( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: dissertation. she had notes and she went through a long discussion. first she said that she concluded, after conferring with her colleagues that, it would be better to wait to appeal the supreme court until after the trial, because a trial would build a better factual record in the case. she said that once the facts were better developed, the

Jeff Sessions

1:51:55 to 1:52:16( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: government might be in a better position before the supreme court. second, she said that allowing the case to go back to the district court would help the government in a future appeal because it would be able to show the supreme court just how invasive and strange -- strange,

Jeff Sessions

1:52:17 to 1:52:41( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: that's her word -- were the demands of the ninth circuit that were being placed on the government in defense of the law. i'll say one thing, the ninth circuit demands were indeed strange and were utterly unworkable, as i will just show. third, she sai that an appeal in the witt case would have been -- quote -- that is, an appeal before the

Jeff Sessions

1:52:42 to 1:53:02( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: case had come to an end and before a final judgment had been rendered in the case and the supreme court prefers not to hear these kinds of appeals. none of these explanations are credible. it's true that appellateourts, including the supreme court, prefer to hear appeals at the

Jeff Sessions

1:53:03 to 1:53:23( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: end of the case ra the middle. but that is a decision that the court can make for itself. it's not something that the solicitor general has to decide in the and that consideration was clea ened i would just note parenthetically that when the third circuit ruled that the

Jeff Sessions

1:53:24 to 1:53:44( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: solomon amendment which required harvard and other law schools to allow military equal access to recruit on campus, they took that as an and reversed the third circuit. that's exactly what should have been taken -- the government asked for an interlocutory

Jeff Sessions

1:53:45 to 1:54:07( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: appeal to the supreme court from the third harvard case, or the third circuit case that affected harvard. and the supreme court agreed. it was a legal question, ripe for decision, and they took it and rendered the case. and that is what should have happened here.

Jeff Sessions

1:54:08 to 1:54:29( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: here, you already had a split among the court of appeals on this question. the first circuit had already ruled as a matter of law by the government. the ninth circuit conflicted with the third it was at odd with opinions on four other circuits.

Jeff Sessions

1:54:30 to 1:54:51( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: here you had an opinion from the ninth circuit that presented clean questions of law, an opinion that had dramatically altered the legal landscape in 40% of the united states, because the ninth circuit encompasses 40% of the united states. and that was proposing to subject a military to an

Jeff Sessions

1:54:52 to 1:55:14( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: invasive trial process. while we're fighting a war, to defend the application of a nationwide military policy to an individual person. ms. kagan's second explanation that letting the case go to trial would allow the government to show just how painful a trial

Jeff Sessions

1:55:15 to 1:55:38( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: would be, i think cannot be given serious consideration. the ninth circuit opinion was very clear about what the government would have to show in order for the don't ask, don't tell law to survive this lawsuit. in other words, if it had been -- you didn't have to go through all these steps at the

Jeff Sessions

1:55:39 to 1:55:59( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: lower court and show how dramatically disruptive it would be. the court set forth explicitly what would happen. it's easy to show the supreme court why this is not a workable policy. the ninth circuit made it very clear in their opinion that the government was going to have to justify the application of don't

Jeff Sessions

1:56:00 to 1:56:20( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: ask, don't tell to this specific plaintiff. not justify the law, but to justify its application to this to prove that this specific plaintiff was going to harm the military if she were allowed to remain in the air force. it was also clear that such a trial was going to be disruptive

Jeff Sessions

1:56:21 to 1:56:42( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: to the military and that it would harm the unit cohesion that congress had set out to protect when it passed don't ask, don't tell law in 1994.

Jeff Sessions

1:56:43 to 1:57:06( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: i'm not alone in reaching this conclusion. her predecessors in the department of justice and in the solicitor general's office, the office that she took over, also knew that the courts' orders did not make sense. that's why they immediately

Jeff Sessions

1:57:07 to 1:57:27( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: asked the full ninth circuit to en banc reconsider the court rulings when they first came down in 2008. they said in their brief that the ninth circuit decision -- quote -- "creates an intercircuit split" close quote. that means that the fir circuit had held differently.

Jeff Sessions

1:57:28 to 1:57:49( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: the ninth circuit held a different way. you had a split of circuits which is something the supreme court considers when they decide to take a case. and they went on to say -- que -- "a conflict with supreme court precedent and an unworkable rule that cannot be implemented without disrupting the military."

Jeff Sessions

1:57:50 to 1:58:13( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: so they immediately sought appeal. the ninth circuit's decision, they went on to say, made the constutiality of a federal law setting military policy for the entire nation -- quote -- "depend on case-by-case surveys

Jeff Sessions

1:58:14 to 1:58:36( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: in a particular plaintiff's unit ." they went on to say that immediate review was needed -- quote -- "was needed now to prevent this unprecedented and disruptive process." close quote. and that is exactly correct.

Jeff Sessions

1:58:37 to 1:58:59( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: the solicitor general who made that argument clearly was correct. and most importantly, ms. kagan's decision to send this case back for trial and not appeal doesn't make any sense because she knew -- she that a trial was going to be

Jeff Sessions

1:59:00 to 1:59:21( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: massively disruptive to the military. i have studied the record of the case on remand to the district ourt, what's been going on since it was sent back to be tried on an individual plaintiff basis. the lawyers for the government are struggling as they can to

Jeff Sessions

1:59:22 to 1:59:42( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: defend the law under these difficult circumstances. from the very first hearing before the district court, these lawyers, career lawyers, professionals in the department of justice solicitor general's office, well, department of justice is asking the court not

Jeff Sessions

1:59:43 to 2:00:03( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: to allow discoveryy, not to allow the plaintiffs to go through soldiers in the military unit. here's what the career attorney for the department of justice said at the first hearing before the district judge aft the case went back down for this trial. if we --nto specific facts

Jeff Sessions

2:00:04 to 2:00:25( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: into this case by looking into what unit members think, we are threatening -- we have jeopardizing the unit -- unit moral and cohesion that the ninth circuit said the government, the military, has an important government interest in. so the military's in a bit of a catch 22 by proceeding to

Jeff Sessions

2:00:26 to 2:00:47( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: discovery we may well have to sacrifice our important government interest. close quote. now, remember, ms. kagan told the judiciary comttee, she told us just a few weeks ago that building a factual record would be good for the

Jeff Sessions

2:00:48 to 2:01:09( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: government's case. remember? just went through that. that's what she said. it would be good. we'd have a better prospect on appeal somehow. here the career lawyers are trying to defend the military and are saying that building a factual record is bad for the government because the discovery process will threaten the military's interest in cohesion.

Jeff Sessions

2:01:10 to 2:01:33( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: and, as a matter ofact, i'll say as an aside, i think it's quite clear if the ninth circuit theory of law were to be held, the don't ask, don't tell policy would be put in the situation where it would be difficult, if ever, tonforce because everybody dismissed under that policy would then be able to

Jeff Sessions

2:01:34 to 2:01:56( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: have a big trial, would go on as this one has for months, and they would be able to call all the unit members to ask their opinion of what they thought of this and that and the other. even about their personal activities perhaps. this is not a practical

Jeff Sessions

2:01:57 to 2:02:19( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: solution. it is bad for the -- for the government. how ms. kagan could say it would be good for the case, i don't know. is right. the plaintiff in this case, who is represented, let me know by

Jeff Sessions

2:02:20 to 2:02:41( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: lawyers from the aclu have asked for and received access to the personal records of the entire unit. they demanded depositions the other soldiers before she was separated from the military. they have demanded the right to

Jeff Sessions

2:02:42 to 2:03:02( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: interview soldiers about their private lives, their personal views of their former colleague and their private thoughts about sexuality. and the district court has wrongly, i believe -- well, i'll just say it this way. the district court has allowed it at every turn because the

Jeff Sessions

2:03:03 to 2:03:23( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: district court says this is the only way to comply and to answer the questions that the ninth circuit ordered them to answer before a person could be dismissed. -- dismissed under this provision of the law.

Jeff Sessions

2:03:24 to 2:03:44( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: but it isn't just a case of bad -- or astonishingly bad judgment. i don't think ms. kagan accidentally would -- would send her client, the united states air force, into a litigated --

Jeff Sessions

2:03:45 to 2:04:05( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: litigator's lion's den. i think it was not an accident. i believe that she understood this was going to happen. and for some reason she wanted it to happen. the very first hearing the district judge held after

Jeff Sessions

2:04:06 to 2:04:27( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: ms. kagan refused to appeal to the supreme court the case -- and the cas for trial, the plaintiff's lawyers, i suppose several -- maybe multiple lawyers, may not have been aclu law been. they argued that they needed to get all this discovery in the case. and they made a very interesting statement to the district judge.

Jeff Sessions

2:04:28 to 2:04:49( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: they said this, the government just doesn't want any i heard that message from government clearly loud and clear. we were asked to meet with the solicitor general of the united states in april and we heard that message loud and clear that discovery is a big problem, but

Jeff Sessions

2:04:50 to 2:05:14( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: we never heard any specifics as to why and it boils down to they don't like the nin decision. close quote. so apparently back in april ms. kaga acknowledged what i think is indisputable, that discovery of this kind where

Jeff Sessions

2:05:15 to 2:05:36( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: sold yesoldiers are deposed and asked about their personal views and activities would be disruptive to the military and bad for the air force, the client. that's just undisputable. and she was solicitor general then and acknowledged that.

Jeff Sessions

2:05:37 to 2:05:57( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: her decision to block an appeal to the supreme court was finalized in may of 2009. so before she made that decision, it does ms. kagan met with the opposing counsel in the case, the aclu lawyers, and told them that -- quote -- "discovery is a big problem." close quote.

Jeff Sessions

2:05:58 to 2:06:18( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: in other words, she told these aclu lawyers before the other side who were trying to attack the military policy that developing a factual record in this case would be bad for the government. but she told us at the committee she thought it was going to be better for the government.

Jeff Sessions

2:06:19 to 2:06:39( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: and she knew in april of 2009 that a trial would be harmful to the interest of her client. but she made sure the case went back for a trial anyway. she knew that discovery would be harmful to the government's interests, but she told the judiciary just two weeks ago, under oath, that she's decided not to allow an appeal to the

Jeff Sessions

2:06:40 to 2:07:02( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: supreme court because she thought -- quote -- "it woulde better to go to the supreme court with a full record." close quote. that would be developed at trial. i do not know how to reconcile her testimony with the record in the case. i do not think it can be reconciled. during the nomination process i

Jeff Sessions

2:07:03 to 2:07:28( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: expressed my concern about mrs. kagan's record as a political lawyer. someone who has advanced a specific agenda as an adviser in says she was channeling the supreme court when she encouraged him not to hear certain cases because she did not think a majority of the court would rule the way she and her boss would like.

Jeff Sessions

2:07:29 to 2:07:52( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: but i do think that this big decision she general is in many ways more concrete proof -- actually just a few of months ago that the concerns that this nominee will have difficulties and maybe find

Jeff Sessions

2:07:53 to 2:08:14( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: it impossible to set aside political views and decide cases objectively and fairly. so faced with the hard task and a solemn responsibility of defending of the laws of the united states after having promised the judiciary committee unde oath that she would be

Jeff Sessions

2:08:15 to 2:08:35( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: able to uphold that responsibility, even as to this specific law that she personally opposes, i am forced to conclude that ms. kagan did not live up to that promise. and did not fulfill a solemn

Jeff Sessions

2:08:36 to 2:08:56( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: duty of the solicitor general of the united states. this is not a statute, in my view, that is likely to be overturned by the supreme court. in fact, we know that the aclu in another case did not want to see the case be appealed to the supreme court.

Jeff Sessions

2:08:57 to 2:09:21( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: why? they felt they would lose, in my opinion and let me just talk about duty. maybe that's a bit old fashioned today, but ms. kagan didn't have to make a promise before the committee that this law.

Jeff Sessions

2:09:22 to 2:09:42( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: it's a duty of every solicitor general to defend the laws of the united states whether they like them or not, whether they think it is a good idea or not, who cares what they think? they have a responsibility. high in the department of justice.

Jeff Sessions

2:09:43 to 2:10:08( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: the position that says solicitor general appears before the supreme court. -- before the supreme court and states the position of the united states. indeed, the solicitor general has been often called the greatest lawyer job in the world. why? because the solicitor general

Jeff Sessions

2:10:12 to 2:10:32( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: those justices president, i represent the united states of america. what greater honor someone -- for someone to have than that to represent this great nation before the nation's highest court? and much is expected of them. so i say she didn't have to make

Jeff Sessions

2:10:33 to 2:10:56( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: a promise to d statute. it was her duty whether she liked it or not. and it does appear, i can't see how we can draw any other conclusion than she did not like this law. and that her strategy in the

Jeff Sessions

2:10:57 to 2:11:17( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: case clearly had the effect of allowing definitive supreme court ruling on the constitutionality of the statute and to allow these proceedings to be dragged out in lower court and to maybe, what?

Jeff Sessions

2:11:18 to 2:11:39( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: influence congress as to whether or not it repeals this act? i don't know. certainly she despised it. she opposed it. she wrote briefs at harvard attacking the solomon amendment that said that harvard law scho had to give the military

Jeff Sessions

2:11:40 to 2:12:05( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: equal treatment on campus and that that could not be denied simply because she didn't agree with don't ask, don't tell, which is what she was doing at harvard. and the result of her decision showed a willingness to allow

Jeff Sessions

2:12:06 to 2:12:27( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: the aclu to prowl through our airmen and soldiers and units, over 40% of america, turning upside down the discipline and order of those units in a way that's damaging to the military. i don't see how it could be considered other ways.

Jeff Sessions

2:12:28 to 2:12:51( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: so i think it was an abdication of duty. i feel, based on my judgment -- i mean i -- we're senators here. we're elected. we've got

Jeff Sessions

2:12:52 to 2:13:13( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: that our nominee was articulate and had good humor and many thought did very well with her testimony. i was not so impressed. but i do believe that you have to fulfill your duty and responsibility. particularly after you've

Jeff Sessions

2:13:14 to 2:13:35( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: explicitly promised to do so with regard to this specic case and defend the law even when it runs contrary to one's own personal views. and what if the person is now

Jeff Sessions

2:13:36 to 2:13:56( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: confirmed to the bench for 30, 35 years if she were to serve as long as the judge she's replacing, i think she would serve 38 years -- 38 years on the supreme court. we have to know before they're launched forward on the court that the nominee has the ability

Jeff Sessions

2:13:57 to 2:14:18( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: and the character and the integrity to defend the legal system right or -- in a proper and effective way. and this nomination is further complicated by the fact that our nominee has no experience in the

Jeff Sessions

2:14:19 to 2:14:42( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: real practice of law. our nominee has never tried a case, never stood before a jury, to my knowledge ner cross-examined a witness in a trial. never had to deal with a judge who's not feeling good, maybe irritable one day. or dealing with lawyers on the

Jeff Sessions

2:14:43 to 2:15:08( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: other side who are cler and tough. that's something you learn. she has never been a judge. well, they say that's not necessary. somereat justices haven't judges. of been a judge or a real lawyer? that and then when i see the kind of

Jeff Sessions

2:15:09 to 2:15:34( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: things that i've seen here, it makes me pause, frankly. an will look at this and take it seriously. there are other examples of positions taken by this nominee as that are very troubling.

Jeff Sessions

2:15:35 to 2:15:55( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: i think importance of the rule of law in our country. president obama has said he wants judges with i don't know what empathy is. i doot -- that is not a legal standard. it's something other than law.

Jeff Sessions

2:15:56 to 2:16:17( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: it's more akin to politics or bias than law. he has said he who will demonstrate that they in the course of their duties will have a broader vision for what america should be.

Jeff Sessions

2:16:18 to 2:16:41( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: does that mean a judge gets to manipulate the meanings of wo constitution, to promote this vision that were they elected to promote any vision? i don't think so. i think a judge should be a neutral umpire who puts on that robe to evidence a commitment to

Jeff Sessions

2:16:42 to 2:17:02( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: impartiaty. and to call the facts of the case as they see them following the law and faithfully finding the facts of the case. that's what a judge is all about, and i'm very concerned that our nomin has been testimony to me was too much

Jeff Sessions

2:17:03 to 2:17:23( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: akin to white house spin in general, her testimony in general intellectually honest explanation of what law and facts are in complicated situations. i -- i didn't feel good about it. maybe others did. but not my opinion.

Jeff Sessions

2:17:24 to 2:17:40( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Sessions: so i -- those are concerns i have. i hope that my colleagues will specifically look at the don't ask, don't tell matter. i think it raises questions about whether the nominee should be confirmed. i would yield the floor and note

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid